Crossing Atlantic Engine Out To Save Money

[bocefus]

This is perfect fuel for the regulating authorities who have been wanting to extend ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft. It's bound to happen.

 

[Spooky 1]

This is perfect fuel for the regulating authorities who have been wanting to extend ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft. It's bound to happen.

Okay...........how would this incident relate to any ETOP scenarios? Can't see the connection here. Why do you think this is bound to happen? The last I heard regarding the JAA was sniffying around the issue but no one in the US felt it necessary. Also since Airbus is big on the four engine concept along with Falcon's three engine aircraft I suspect that they enjoy seeing the Americans under the thumb of ETOPS and would not be pleased with a level playing field where ETOPS regulations are imposed upon their product lines. It's not bound to happen IMO.

 

[8vATE]

Can't see the connection here. Why do you think this is bound to happen? (re: 3 or more engine ETOPS)

There was a sizeable article in the ALPA rag a while back...

There were several issues discussed...
One was if they developed 3 or more engine ETOPS regs... it would clear up some certification/design issues for the 3 and more engined aircraft and bring them inline with some current 2 eng ETOP regs..

Also.... I believe part of the carrot/stick was letting the 2 eng ETOPs go out another 30 minutes or so...
Supposively a big incentive for the Pacific 2 engine operators...

Think there was something else in the article about enroute alternate weather and/or suitability issues?

Doesn't seem to be on the front burner though...

FWIW.....

 

[profile]

I should add that personally I would have dumped gas and landed, not sure that the "as safe as" argument would fly in this case. One thing to overfly some out of the way place that's unfamiliar and no service availability, and quite another to pass the opportunity to land at a major airport with great services, such as SEA, YVR, or return back to point of departure.

 

[Whale Rider]

3 Engines? More than 2 Engines? Its all fun and games until a bunch of people get killed. Policy or not I wouldn't try it.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

WSJ: SAME acft loses another engine and continues AGAIN!

Radio this am said Wall Street Journal reporting the same tail number lost an engine I think yesterday shortly after t/o in Singapore and continued to London. Can anyone post link?

First thing that comes to mind ... mx at BA sucks or something fishy going on there?

These BA guys are pushing their luck with this scenario, IMO.


I have the previous WSJ article that says the FAA is investigating this. If it's legal and no problem as some have suggested, then why all the fuss from the FAA? Seems they don't agree with BA's guidance apparently.

 

[G4G5]

Not a problem for BA, from what I understand the BA 3 Holler continued all the way from Singapore to LHR.


After all as some folks here suggest, "it perfectly legal"

Reuters:
BA has now determined that the money spent on intalling personal entertainment systems in thier aircraft will be diverted to installing the entertainment systems in their life rafts.

 

[hawg2hawk]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html

 

[Freddie Spencer]

Looking back at BA's safety record, it seems to me BA knows what they are doing. On the other hand, I think we should direct our safety concerns towards a unnamed US cargo carrier that seems to loose a hull every 18 months.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

On the other hand, I think we should direct our safety concerns towards a unnamed US cargo carrier that seems to loose a hull every 18 months.

YEEEOOOOUUUUUCCCCHHHH Freddie! You better duck.